I love history and the stories of the events and the biographies of the people involved. However, the part I struggle with is working out the significance of the event(s) in a wider context, and their effect on future events.

I am probably not expressing myself that well but sometimes it takes decades or centuries for the real implications of certain events to become clear. How do you know when those consequences are being felt?

We're all familiar with the Thomas A'Becket story for instance. However, a king 'orders' the murder of a priest. Why is this significant in the long term history of Britain and when and how does this manifest itself.

People may disagree with me but I kind of think the deeds of some/many/most Kings, Generals, Noblemen, etc are kind of pointless. If one general or king had not concurred some piece of land some other would have done it. Same with tax laws and penal codes etc. Perhaps I am wrong but I think the deeds of statesmen and generals are vastly overrated.

The people I think who are vastly - underrated - are the scientists and inventors. I bet half the people on this website know the generals involved on both halves of the Battle of Hastings. But how many people here know who invented the felt tip pen????

Not everything is necessairly super significant. Sometimes events are just neat stories, like the one you described (especially if you visit Canterbury Cathedral and see the scene of the crime.)

To judge what is "important" draw connections from a later event back to its origin as much as possible.

For sure I am noticing in the college lectures I listen to, many comments are about interesting things, that are not necessarily important to understanding history.

On the other hand, I think there are huge social, economic and political ramifications to the US adopting the German models of bureaucracy and education and no one knows what I am talking about because evidently, historians do not consider such things as important.

Or when we learn of the Civil War in the US we don't learn what advances in British mills had to do with that history, and what Britain's development of cotton fields in India had to do with the defeat of the South. We know next to nothing about the oil industry and international matters revolving around oil, and the economics revolving around trading oil in dollars.

History is his story and a lot gets left out of his story. Most of my old history texts are about conquest and conquer, and not inventions and resulting change. But more recent books like "Don't Know Much About History" and "A People's History of the United States" are more about the significance of the events.

Quote:

TotalAaron- Its A fair point, i see military leaders as more important, for they are responsible for the survival of their nations. No nation= no scientists but i do understand where you are coming from.

Modern day military power is almost completely about science and the technology coming out of this science. NASA is now gathering information about our earth and space, but it did not come about because people enjoy science. NASA is about national defense, and was triggered by the USSR gaining knowledge of nuclear weapons and sending Sputnik around the world, demonstrating it not only had nuclear bomb technology but also the technology to deliver the bombs. Air warfare and nuclear weapons changing the world in dramatic ways.

It was for military reasons, the 1958 National Defense Education Act, replaced liberal education in the US with the German model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose. As early as the first world war, Prussian generals realized the economic and military value of what Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex and what Hitler and the Bush family called the New World Order. Time to up date your understanding of modern day warfare.